Make a rainbow fall at our feet 🌈 tell us about our mistakes, typos, and other oversights

Comment to MN69:17.1:

In the suttas, abhivinaya means “about the teaching” just as abhidhamma means “about the Vinaya” …

Should be: "abhivinaya means “about the vinaya” just as abhidhamma means “about the dhamma”.

MN64:13.2: So yadeva tattha hoti vedanāgataṁ saññāgataṁ saṅkhāragataṁ viññāṇagataṁ …
They contemplate the phenomena there as impermanent …

Perhaps it would be good to abbreviate a little less here and still mention the aggregates of feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness, so that it becomes evident that the form aggregate is not listed here (we are in the formless attainments).

Comment to MN70:16.2:

Of course these arahants have practiced absorption, which is an essential part of the eightfold path. But because of their strong insight, they they have not needed to further develop the ultimate refinement of the formless attainments.

“They” is duplicated.


2 posts were merged into an existing topic: SuttaCentral: bug reports

SN 16, section 9, “The Deaths in Natika,” in 8th paragraph:

… Bhadda, and and Subhadda had ended the five lower fetters. …

Note repeated ‘and’ before the name Subhadda.

1 Like

MN70:20.1: Katamo ca, bhikkhave, puggalo dhammānusārī?
And what person is a follower of teachings?

MN70:20.4: Ayaṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, puggalo dhammānusārī.
This person is called a follower of principles.

A dhammānusārī is generally a “follower of teachings”, but in this one segment in MN70 it’s a “follower of principles”.

In MN60, the title Apaṇṇakasutta is translated as “Guaranteed” in the preview here, but rendered as “Unfailing” inside the content here.

1 Like

As far as I understand, suttas are given translated titles that are the “default” when the user selects a specific language for the interface. Then individual translators are free to give suttas whatever title they want.

So for example I believe that Ven. @Sabbamitta has translated all text titles into German (maybe based on the English?). What she chooses to use for her sutta translations may be different, though.

So it’s not a bug, just an artifact of a site that can contain more than one translation into specific languages.


That would make a lot of sense! Thank you Venerable for the clarification :pray:

1 Like

Typo in SuttaCentral
didease → disease


AN9.39:7.2: Ayaṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, ‘bhikkhu antamakāsi māraṁ, apadaṁ vadhitvā māracakkhuṁ adassanaṁ gato pāpimato tiṇṇo loke visattikan’ti.
At such a time they are called a mendicant who has blinded Māra, put out his eyes without a trace, and gone where the Wicked One cannot see.

“At such a time” is not in the Pali. Again in segment 8.5.

1 Like

Titles at the beginning and throughout SN 31 translate gandhabba as fairy, while in the suttas it’s centaur.


The comment I just made here kind of explains what is going on, however I did find that with this sutta the translator’s title indeed does not match the translation.

But it’s honestly not easy to tell when something is a site wide title and when it is the translator’s title. For example, I think the second line of text (“1. FAIRIES”) is the site wide title translation.


“Iwas on the road and about to give birth.,
“Upavijaññā gacchantī,

Stray full stop?

In AN5.26 (and possibly others with similar sequences), the that in the fifth opportunity sounds a little clumsy.

The first opportunity is:

Firstly, the Teacher or a respected spiritual companion teaches Dhamma to a mendicant.
That mendicant feels inspired by the meaning and the teaching in that Dhamma, …

And in the next three “that Dhamma” also works fine.

However, in the fifth it sounds odd:

But a meditation subject as a basis of immersion is properly grasped, focused on, borne in mind, and comprehended with wisdom.
That mendicant feels inspired by the meaning and the teaching in that Dhamma, no matter how a meditation subject as a basis of immersion is properly grasped, focused on, borne in mind, and comprehended with wisdom.

This may be just a problem with the abbreviation. Bhikkhu Bodhi’s translation writes it in full:

(5) “Again, neither the Teacher nor a fellow monk in the position of a teacher teaches the Dhamma to a bhikkhu, nor does he teach the Dhamma to others in detail as he has heard it and learned it, nor does he recite the Dhamma in detail as he has heard it and learned it, nor does he ponder, examine, and mentally inspect the Dhamma as he has heard it and learned it, but he has grasped well a certain object of concentration, attended to it well, sustained it well, and penetrated it well with wisdom. In whatever way the bhikkhu has grasped well a certain object of concentration, attended to it well, sustained it well, and penetrated it well with wisdom, in just that way, in relation to that Dhamma, he experiences inspiration in the meaning and inspiration in the Dhamma.

So, I gather that in this case, that Dhamma means the meditation subject that has been: penetrated well with wisdom.

MN101:24.7: “Amu hi, bhante, puriso amussā itthiyā sāratto paṭibaddhacitto tibbacchando tibbāpekkho.
Because that man is in love that woman, full of intense desire and lust.”

Should be “in love with that woman”.

MN28:23.5: Phassaṁ paṭicca.
Dependent on contact.

There should be a closing quote after “contact”. It is lacking in the Pali too, but is there in segment 8.5.

Compare these two:

AN7.66:7.7: Pañcamassa, bhikkhave, sūriyassa pātubhāvā aṅgulipabbamattampi mahāsamudde udakaṁ na hoti.
When the fifth sun appears there’s not even enough water in the great ocean to wet a toe-joint.


MN28:12.7: Hoti kho so, āvuso, samayo, yaṁ mahāsamudde aṅgulipabbatemanamattampi udakaṁ na hoti.
There comes a time when there isn’t enough water in the ocean even to wet the tip of your finger.

I opt for the toe here, given that in the preceding segment the water goes down from waist to knee to ankle.

(I just learned that in Pali, “toe” and “finger” are the same word.)

Comment to MN1:51.1:

The “perfected one” is the arahant, literally “worthy one”, who is the Buddhist spiritual ideal. Their direct knowing is so powerful that it has cut through all fetters bindings them to transmigration.

Should be “all fetters binding them to transmigration” (remove “s”).


Hi everyone, and thanks to all those who have contributed! I’ll be working through these suggestions for the next little while. Let’s go!


None really, just parts of speech.

Would it be possible to make a Github issue with this, spelling out what you think the appropriate action would be?

It’s singular when referencing a specific teaching, plural when used in general. As far as I can see it’s used correctly, but do let me know if there are any exceptions to this.


Thanks, fixed.

Thanks, fixed all these.

It’s a tricky idiom, because it’s used of a chariot wheel, an assembly, and a crop. Now I use “consolidated in the core” in all cases.

This is probably fixed with the update to using DPD.

Indeed yes, I have completed these now.

It’s either a typo, or else a shelter from the rain that is as wide as a capital letter M. Who can say? :person_shrugging:

Done, thanks.

No, it’s correct, it’s actually based on the belief that the earth rests on water so earthquakes are caused by a disturbance in the water element. I’ve added a note.

Indeed, thanks.

Right, good point. I’ll render “brahmin by kin” to keep consistency, and distinguish from brahmajacco.

Oh right, great point, that makes it even more Upanishadic. I had assumed the so here was the pleonastic, but you’re right.

(It seems to me this is a subtle aspect of Indic grammar exploited by the Upanishads. The humble pronoun, so ubiquitous and leached of meaning, is everywhere without being noticed, even dismissed as mere superfluity. Yet it is that which is the hidden divinity in all things.)

I’ve accepted the rest of your suggestions, even the annoying correct one about that/which!

These are really good points, thanks. I’ve hopefully fixed the problem, making the translation stick more closely to the text.

excellent, thanks.

On review, I think you’re right and I’m wrong. The phrase can be read in isolation either way, but in context the previous sentence says they did not examine the meaning.

Indeed, a careless error!

Spell Maddī throught.

Incidentally, the conjunction of the names Kanha and Maddi here suggest this has an echo of the story of Krishna and his wife Madri, for which see note on dn3:1.23.8.

Interesting, where the phrase appears at an7.62:1.5, the mention of seven years meditation is in the previous sentence, so I abbreviated it. But the Iti lacks that previous sentence.


Right it’s been copied over from sn2.29.

Right, thanks.

Indeed, thanks, very careful reading you’re doing there!

ha ha, good question!

Well, according to the commentary it’s either the flesh of the heart, which is wrapped like a cord around the heart-essence. Or it’s the heart-flesh plus the “cords” (i.e. arteries, etc.). Or if we look to sanskrit it is “captivating the heart”, but that’s surely inapplicable here.

Change to:

bones, and heart with cords:

Use foundation throughout, see note on mn140:11.3.

No, it renders kevalā.

Thx, fixed.

Welcome, thanks for helping out.

Yes, it’s a bit on an unclear word, dictionaries give both meanings, but it seems the dominant sense in Sanskrit is “burning chaff” so I adopt that.

Oops, thanks.

Again, thanks.

In fact both are incorrect. It’s brāhmaṇa, i.e. “brahmin”, in reference to where the Buddha calls himself a brahmin. It should be, “the Brahmin’s offering of the Teaching”.

Indeed, yes.

Is this a unique case? I’d be wary about introducing a coding specification for just a single instance. I dunno, the brackets look fine to me. But it does look like the Pali has an error of displaced text, so if the source is clumsy, the translation should also be clumsy.

Indeed it should!

use this one.

Annoyingly, my browser spellcheck says both are correct. Use judgment.

No idea, use “dragon”.

It’s consistent now, but I may need to revise this in light of my recent realization that this is the “red horse” i.e. “sunbeam”, i.e. an attribute of Agni.


I guess I’m not even sure. Other than that the current message is kind of useless and doesn’t give a good sense of how the text should be re-created. So for the case of the one I pointed out would it just be something like “replacing all mentions of noble eightfold path with five powers”?

If no one else has ever brought it up as a problem, maybe it doesn’t really matter.

(BTW, in the latest bug thread, I went through and reviewed all the issues to that point in this post. You might want to start there if you are going to review that thread.)


It seems to be a commentarial gloss intruding in the Canonical text. So I suppose that’s a kind of displacement. To be honest, I am not too bothered.

@666tomanderson, do you have any comment?

1 Like

I think Barua’s work is superseded by that of Wijesekera and Jayatilleke. Addhariya is from sanskrit Adhvaryu, namely the priests who performed the ritual actions at the sacrifice, whose text is the Śatapatha, in which they are called by this name constantly. I’ve recently expanded that note:

Identified by Wijesekera (A Pali Reference to Brāhmaṇa-Caraṇas, Adyar Library Bulletin, vol 20, 1956; reprinted in Buddhist and Vedic Studies) and Jayatilleke (Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge, p. 480). I use the familiar Sanskrit forms, as the Pali has several dubious spellings and variants. Their texts and corresponding Vedas are respectively: Adhvaryu = Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa (incl. Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad; White Yajur Veda); Taittirīya = Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa (Black Yajur Veda); Chāndogya = Chāndogya Brāhmaṇa (Sāman Veda); Cāndrāyaṇa = Kauṣītaki Brāhmaṇa (Rig Veda; spelling established by Wijesekera; see below at dn13:16.2); Bahvṛca = Bahvṛca Brāhmaṇa (Rig Veda; incorporated in Aitareya and Kauśītaki.) This is the only time the Pali canon mentions these schools, but in some cases we can identify them with brahmins in the canon. Examples include the murmuring Chāndogya brahmin (ud1.4); or the Buddha’s former teachers, who evidently hailed from the Addhariya tradition of the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa (mn26:15.1ff.). | Jayatilleke notes that the Śatapatha describes its own adherents as Adhvaryu (addhariyā), those priests of the Yajur Veda responsible for the physical acts at the ritual.

I’ve changed it.


It does now!

Lost at sea


Sure, sometimes use both original and translation.

ok, fixed.

Indeed, yes.

I’m not sure about that, generally we don’t touch our legacy translations. You’re right that the original has Confections, but at some point someone has modernized it with “conditions” instead, but applied inconsistently.

Better use the new translation (ongoing) by John Kelly:

As for “body”, no, it basically just means “reborn in some form or another”, namely the five aggregates, which is what the commentary says. Perhaps “substantial forms”.

Hmm, best reserve “perishable” for vipariṇāmadhamma, use “not liable to pass away” for acavanadhamma and “state that does not pass” for accutaṁ padaṁ (or ṭhānaṁ).

Thanks. Also, the idiom should be “two-handed saw”!

That’s fixed already.


Indeed they are. This seems to be a unique case, normally it is craving that takes pleasure.

This is an unwarranted passage, imported in MS from the Abhidhamma and absent in most editions.

Honestly we should probably translate vayo as “wind” everywhere. I’ll review this, but leave it for now.


Big sadhu for revising all those!

In AN8.78:6.6 the “not” should still be inserted.

And I think similar cases are in AN10.83, AN8.82, and AN9.19.


Ah, right!


Amazing! In German it does not. The word exists only in singular.

In Thag 2.46, accuta is still “unchanging”.

Interesting—I think I didn’t even realize this. But in MN140, “or anything else internal, pertaining to an individual, that’s space, spacious, and appropriated” is lacking.

Thank you again for all your amazing work! :pray: